Chunking with Support Vector Machines
Taku Kudo and Yuji Matsumoto
Graduate School of Information Science,
Nara Institute of Science and Technology
takuku,matsu
@is.aistnara.ac.jp
Abstract
We apply Support Vector Machines (SVMs) to
identify English base phrases (chunks).SVMs
are known to achieve high generalization perfor
mance even with input data of high dimensional
feature spaces.Furthermore,by the Kernel princi
ple,SVMs can carry out training with smaller com
putational overhead independent of their dimen
sionality.We apply weighted voting of 8 SVMs
based systems trained with distinct chunk repre
sentations.Experimental results show that our ap
proach achieves higher accuracy than previous ap
proaches.
1 Introduction
Chunking is recognized as series of processes
rst identifying proper chunks from a sequence of
tokens (such as words),and second classifying these
chunks into some grammatical classes.Various
NLP tasks can be seen as a chunking task.Exam
ples include English base noun phrase identication
(base NP chunking),English base phrase identica
tion (chunking),Japanese chunk (bunsetsu) identi
cation and named entity extraction.Tokenization
and partofspeech tagging can also be regarded as
a chunking task,if we assume each character as a
token.
Machine learning techniques are often applied to
chunking,since the task is formulated as estimating
an identifying function from the information (fea
tures) available in the surrounding context.Various
machine learning approaches have been proposed
for chunking (Ramshaw and Marcus,1995;Tjong
Kim Sang,2000a;Tjong Kim Sang et al.,2000;
Tjong KimSang,2000b;Sassano and Utsuro,2000;
van Halteren,2000).
Conventional machine learning techniques,such
as Hidden Markov Model (HMM) and Maximum
Entropy Model (ME),normally require a careful
feature selection in order to achieve high accuracy.
They do not provide a method for automatic selec
tion of given feature sets.Usually,heuristics are
used for selecting effective features and their com
binations.
New statistical learning techniques such as Sup
port Vector Machines (SVMs) (Cortes and Vap
nik,1995;Vapnik,1998) and Boosting(Freund and
Schapire,1996) have been proposed.These tech
niques take a strategy that maximizes the margin
between critical samples and the separating hyper
plane.In particular,SVMs achieve high generaliza
tion even with training data of a very high dimen
sion.Furthermore,by introducing the Kernel func
tion,SVMs handle nonlinear feature spaces,and
carry out the training considering combinations of
more than one feature.
In the eld of natural language processing,SVMs
are applied to text categorization and syntactic de
pendency structure analysis,and are reported to
have achieved higher accuracy than previous ap
proaches.(Joachims,1998;Taira and Haruno,1999;
Kudo and Matsumoto,2000a).
In this paper,we apply Support Vector Machines
to the chunking task.In addition,in order to achieve
higher accuracy,we apply weighted voting of 8
SVMbased systems which are trained using dis
tinct chunk representations.For the weighted vot
ing systems,we introduce a new type of weighting
strategy which are derived fromthe theoretical basis
of the SVMs.
2 Support Vector Machines
2.1 Optimal Hyperplane
Let us dene the training samples each of which
belongs either to positive or negative class as:
is a feature vector of the
th sample repre
sented by an
dimensional vector.
is the class
(positive(
) or negative(
) class) label of the

th sample.
is the number of the given training sam
Small Margin Large Margin
Figure 1:Two possible separating hyperplanes
ples.In the basic SVMs framework,we try to sep
arate the positive and negative samples by a hyper
plane expressed as:
.SVMs nd an optimal hyperplane (i.e.an
optimal parameter set for
) which separates the
training data into two classes.What does optimal
mean?In order to dene it,we need to consider
the margin between two classes.Figure 1 illus
trates this idea.Solid lines showtwo possible hyper
planes,each of which correctly separates the train
ing data into two classes.Two dashed lines paral
lel to the separating hyperplane indicate the bound
aries in which one can move the separating hyper
plane without any misclassication.We call the dis
tance between those parallel dashed lines as mar
gin.SVMs nd the separating hyperplane which
maximizes its margin.Precisely,two dashed lines
and margin (
) can be expressed as:
.
To maximize this margin,we should minimize
.In other words,this problembecomes equiva
lent to solving the following optimization problem:
The training samples which lie on either of two
dashed lines are called support vectors.It is known
that only the support vectors in given training data
matter.This implies that we can obtain the same de
cision function even if we remove all training sam
ples except for the extracted support vectors.
In practice,even in the case where we cannot sep
arate training data linearly because of some noise
in the training data,etc,we can build the sep
arating linear hyperplane by allowing some mis
classications.Though we omit the details here,we
can build an optimal hyperplane by introducing a
soft margin parameter
,which trades off between
the training error and the magnitude of the margin.
Furthermore,SVMs have a potential to carry out
the nonlinear classication.Though we leave the
details to (Vapnik,1998),the optimization problem
can be rewritten into a dual form,where all feature
vectors appear in their dot products.By simply sub
stituting every dot product of
and
in dual form
with a certain Kernel function
,SVMs can
handle nonlinear hypotheses.Among many kinds
of Kernel functions available,we will focus on the
th polynomial kernel:
.
Use of
th polynomial kernel functions allows us to
build an optimal separating hyperplane which takes
into account all combinations of features up to
.
2.2 Generalization Ability of SVMs
Statistical Learning Theory(Vapnik,1998) states
that training error (empirical risk)
and test error
(risk)
hold the following theorem.
Theorem1 (Vapnik) If
is the VC dimen
sion of the class functions implemented by some ma
chine learning algorithms,then for all functions of
that class,with a probability of at least
,the
risk is bounded by
(1)
where
is a nonnegative integer called the Vapnik
Chervonenkis (VC) dimension,and is a measure of
the complexity of the given decision function.The
r.h.s.term of (1) is called VC bound.In order to
minimize the risk,we have to minimize the empir
ical risk as well as VC dimension.It is known that
the following theorem holds for VC dimension
and margin
(Vapnik,1998).
Theorem2 (Vapnik) Suppose
as the dimension
of given training samples
as the margin,and
as the smallest diameter which encloses all train
ing sample,then VC dimension
of the SVMs are
bounded by
(2)
In order to minimize the VC dimension
,we have
to maximize the margin
,which is exactly the
strategy that SVMs take.
Vapnik gives an alternative bound for the risk.
Theorem3 (Vapnik) Suppose
is an error rate
estimated by LeaveOneOut procedure,
is
bounded as
(3)
LeaveOneOut procedure is a simple method to ex
amine the risk of the decision function rst by
removing a single sample fromthe training data,we
construct the decision function on the basis of the
remaining training data,and then test the removed
sample.In this fashion,we test all
samples of the
training data using
different decision functions.(3)
is a natural consequence bearing in mind that sup
port vectors are the only factors contributing to the
nal decision function.Namely,when the every re
moved support vector becomes error in LeaveOne
Out procedure,
becomes the r.h.s.term of (3).In
practice,it is known that this bound is less predic
tive than the VC bound.
3 Chunking
3.1 Chunk representation
There are mainly two types of representations for
proper chunks.One is Inside/Outside representa
tion,and the other is Start/End representation.
1.Inside/Outside
This representation was rst introduced in
(Ramshaw and Marcus,1995),and has been
applied for base NP chunking.This method
uses the following set of three tags for repre
senting proper chunks.
I Current token is inside of a chunk.
O Current token is outside of any chunk.
B Current token is the beginning of a chunk
which immediately follows another chunk.
Tjong Kim Sang calls this method as IOB1
representation,and introduces three alternative
versions IOB2,IOE1 and IOE2 (Tjong Kim
Sang and Veenstra,1999).
IOB2 AB tag is given for every token which
exists at the beginning of a chunk.
Other tokens are the same as IOB1.
IOE1 An E tag is used to mark the last to
ken of a chunk immediately preceding
another chunk.
IOE2 An E tag is given for every token
which exists at the end of a chunk.
2.Start/End
This method has been used for the Japanese
named entity extraction task,and requires the
following ve tags for representing proper
chunks(Uchimoto et al.,2000)
1
.
1
Originally,Uchimoto uses C/E/U/O/S representation.
However we rename them as B/I/O/E/S for our purpose,since
IOB1 IOB2 IOE1 IOE2 Start/End
In
O O O O O
early
I B I I B
trading
I I I E E
in
O O O O O
busy
I B I I B
Hong
I I I I I
Kong
I I E E E
Monday
B B I E S
,
O O O O O
gold
I B I E S
was
O O O O O
Table 1:Example for each chunk representation
B Current token is the start of a chunk con
sisting of more than one token.
E Current token is the end of a chunk consist
ing of more than one token.
I Current token is a middle of a chunk con
sisting of more than two tokens.
S Current token is a chunk consisting of only
one token.
O Current token is outside of any chunk.
Examples of these ve representations are shown
in Table 1.
If we have to identify the grammatical class of
each chunk,we represent them by a pair of an
I/O/B/E/S label and a class label.For example,in
IOB2 representation,BVP label is given to a to
ken which represents the beginning of a verb base
phrase (VP).
3.2 Chunking with SVMs
Basically,SVMs are binary classiers,thus we must
extend SVMs to multiclass classiers in order to
classify three (B,I,O) or more (B,I,O,E,S) classes.
There are two popular methods to extend a binary
classication task to that of
classes.One is one
class vs.all others.The idea is to build
classi
ers so as to separate one class fromall others.The
other is pairwise classication.The idea is to build
classiers considering all pairs of
classes,and nal decision is given by their weighted
voting.There are a number of other methods to ex
tend SVMs to multiclass classiers.For example,
Dietterich and Bakiri(Dietterich and Bakiri,1995)
and Allwein(Allwein et al.,2000) introduce a uni
fying framework for solving the multiclass problem
we want to keep consistency with Inside/Start (B/I/O) represen
tation.
by reducing them into binary models.However,we
employ the simple pairwise classiers because of
the following reasons:
(1) In general,SVMs require
training cost (where
is the size of training data).
Thus,if the size of training data for individual bi
nary classiers is small,we can signicantly reduce
the training cost.Although pairwise classiers tend
to build a larger number of binary classiers,the
training cost required for pairwise method is much
more tractable compared to the one vs.all others.
(2) Some experiments (Kreßel,1999) report that
a combination of pairwise classiers performs bet
ter than the one vs.all others.
For the feature sets for actual training and classi
cation of SVMs,we use all the information avail
able in the surrounding context,such as the words,
their partofspeech tags as well as the chunk labels.
More precisely,we give the following features to
identify the chunk label
for the
th word:
Direction
Word:
POS:
Chunk:
Here,
is the word appearing at
th position,
is
the POS tag of
,and
is the (extended) chunk
label for
th word.In addition,we can reverse the
parsing direction (from right to left) by using two
chunk tags which appear to the r.h.s.of the current
token (
).In this paper,we call the method
which parses fromleft to right as forward parsing,
and the method which parses from right to left as
backward parsing.
Since the preceding chunk labels (
for
forward parsing,
for backward parsing)
are not given in the test data,they are decided dy
namically during the tagging of chunk labels.The
technique can be regarded as a sort of Dynamic Pro
gramming (DP) matching,in which the best answer
is searched by maximizing the total certainty score
for the combination of tags.In using DP matching,
we limit a number of ambiguities by applying beam
search with width
.In CoNLL 2000 shared task,
the number of votes for the class obtained through
the pairwise voting is used as the certain score for
beam search with width 5 (Kudo and Matsumoto,
2000a).In this paper,however,we apply determin
istic method instead of applying beam search with
keeping some ambiguities.The reason we apply de
terministic method is that our further experiments
and investigation for the selection of beam width
shows that larger beamwidth dose not always give a
signicant improvement in the accuracy.Given our
experiments,we conclude that satisfying accuracies
can be obtained even with the deterministic parsing.
Another reason for selecting the simpler setting is
that the major purpose of this paper is to compare
weighted voting schemes and to show an effective
weighting method with the help of empirical risk
estimation frameworks.
3.3 Weighted Voting
Tjong Kim Sang et al.report that they achieve
higher accuracy by applying weighted voting of sys
tems which are trained using distinct chunk rep
resentations and different machine learning algo
rithms,such as MBL,ME and IGTree(Tjong Kim
Sang,2000a;Tjong Kim Sang et al.,2000).It
is wellknown that weighted voting scheme has a
potential to maximize the margin between critical
samples and the separating hyperplane,and pro
duces a decision function with high generalization
performance(Schapire et al.,1997).The boosting
technique is a type of weighted voting scheme,and
has been applied to many NLP problems such as
parsing,partofspeech tagging and text categoriza
tion.
In our experiments,in order to obtain higher ac
curacy,we also apply weighted voting of 8 SVM
based systems which are trained using distinct
chunk representations.Before applying weighted
voting method,rst we need to decide the weights
to be given to individual systems.We can obtain
the best weights if we could obtain the accuracy for
the true test data.However,it is impossible to
estimate them.In boosting technique,the voting
weights are given by the accuracy of the training
data during the iteration of changing the frequency
(distribution) of training data.However,we can
not use the accuracy of the training data for vot
ing weights,since SVMs do not depend on the fre
quency (distribution) of training data,and can sepa
rate the training data without any misclassication
by selecting the appropriate kernel function and the
soft margin parameter.In this paper,we introduce
the following four weighting methods in our exper
iments:
1.Uniformweights
We give the same voting weight to all systems.
This method is taken as the baseline for other
weighting methods.
2.Cross validation
Dividing training data into
portions,we em
ploy the training by using
portions,and
then evaluate the remaining portion.In this
fashion,we will have
individual accuracy.
Final voting weights are given by the average
of these
accuracies.
3.VCbound
By applying (1) and (2),we estimate the lower
bound of accuracy for each system,and use
the accuracy as a voting weight.The voting
weight is calculated as:
.
The value of
,which represents the smallest
diameter enclosing all of the training data,is
approximated by the maximum distance from
the origin.
4.LeaveOneOut bound
By using (3),we estimate the lower bound of
the accuracy of a system.The voting weight is
calculated as:
.
The procedure of our experiments is summarized
as follows:
1.We convert the training data into 4 representa
tions (IOB1/IOB2/IOE1/IOE2).
2.We consider two parsing directions (For
ward/Backward) for each representation,i.e.
systems for a single training data set.
Then,we employ SVMs training using these
independent chunk representations.
3.After training,we examine the VC bound and
LeaveOneOut bound for each of 8 systems.
As for cross validation,we employ the steps 1
and 2 for each divided training data,and obtain
the weights.
4.We test these 8 systems with a separated test
data set.Before employing weighted voting,
we have to convert them into a uniform repre
sentation,since the tag sets used in individual
8 systems are different.For this purpose,we
reconvert each of the estimated results into 4
representations (IOB1/IOB2/IOE2/IOE1).
5.We employ weighted voting of 8 systems with
respect to the converted 4 uniform representa
tions and the 4 voting schemes respectively.Fi
nally,we have
(types of uniform representa
tions)
4 (types of weights)
results for
our experiments.
Although we can use models with IOBESF or
IOBESB representations for the committees for
the weighted voting,we do not use them in our
voting experiments.The reason is that the num
ber of classes are different (3 vs.5) and the esti
mated VCand LOObound cannot straightforwardly
be compared with other models that have three
classes (IOB1/IOB2/IOE1/IOE2) under the same
condition.We conduct experiments with IOBES
F and IOBESB representations only to investigate
how far the difference of various chunk representa
tions would affect the actual chunking accuracies.
4 Experiments
4.1 Experiment Setting
We use the following three annotated corpora for
our experiments.
Base NP standard data set (baseNPS)
This data set was rst introduced by (Ramshaw
and Marcus,1995),and taken as the standard
data set for baseNP identication task
2
.This
data set consists of four sections (1518) of
the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) part of the Penn
Treebank for the training data,and one section
(20) for the test data.The data has partof
speech (POS) tags annotated by the Brill tag
ger(Brill,1995).
Base NP large data set (baseNPL)
This data set consists of 20 sections (0221)
of the WSJ part of the Penn Treebank for the
training data,and one section (00) for the test
data.POS tags in this data sets are also anno
tated by the Brill tagger.We omit the experi
ments IOB1 and IOE1 representations for this
training data since the data size is too large for
our current SVMs learning program.In case
of IOB1 and IOE1,the size of training data for
one classier which estimates the class I and
O becomes much larger compared with IOB2
and IOE2 models.In addition,we also omit to
estimate the voting weights using cross valida
tion method due to a large amount of training
cost.
Chunking data set (chunking)
This data set was used for CoNLL2000
shared task(Tjong Kim Sang and Buchholz,
2000).In this data set,the total of 10
base phrase classes (NP,VP,PP,ADJP,ADVP,CONJP,
2
ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/chunker/
INITJ,LST,PTR,SBAR) are annotated.This data
set consists of 4 sections (1518) of the WSJ
part of the Penn Treebank for the training data,
and one section (20) for the test data
3
.
All the experiments are carried out with our soft
ware package TinySVM
4
,which is designed and op
timized to handle large sparse feature vectors and
large number of training samples.This package can
estimate the VC bound and LeaveOneOut bound
automatically.For the kernel function,we use the
2nd polynomial function and set the soft margin
parameter
to be 1.
In the baseNP identication task,the perfor
mance of the systems is usually measured with three
rates:precision,recall and
.In this paper,we re
fer to
as accuracy.
4.2 Results of Experiments
Table 2 shows results of our SVMs based chunk
ing with individual chunk representations.This ta
ble also lists the voting weights estimated by differ
ent approaches (B:Cross Validation,C:VCbound,
D:Leaveoneout).We also show the results of
Start/End representation in Table 2.
Table 3 shows the results of the weighted vot
ing of four different voting methods:A:Uniform,
B:Cross Validation (
),C:VC bound,D:
LeaveOneOut Bound.
Table 4 shows the precision,recall and
of
the best result for each data set.
4.3 Accuracy vs Chunk Representation
We obtain the best accuracy when we ap
ply IOE2B representation for baseNPS and
chunking data set.In fact,we cannot nd
a signicant difference in the performance be
tween Inside/Outside(IOB1/IOB2/IOE1/IOE2) and
Start/End(IOBES) representations.
Sassano and Utsuro evaluate how the difference
of the chunk representation would affect the perfor
mance of the systems based on different machine
learning algorithms(Sassano and Utsuro,2000).
They report that Decision List system performs
better with Start/End representation than with In
side/Outside,since Decision List considers the spe
cic combination of features.As for Maximum
Entropy,they report that it performs better with
Inside/Outside representation than with Start/End,
3
http://lcgwww.uia.ac.be/conll2000/chunking/
4
http://cl.aistnara.ac.jp/takuku/software/TinySVM/
Training Condition
Acc.
Estimated Weights
data rep.
B C D
baseNPS IOB1F
93.76
.9394.4310.9193
IOB1B
93.93
.9422.4351.9184
IOB2F
93.84
.9410.4415.9172
IOB2B
93.70
.9407.4300.9166
IOE1F
93.73
.9386.4274.9183
IOE1B
93.98
.9425.4400.9217
IOE2F
93.98
.9409.4350.9180
IOE2B
94.11
.9426.4510.9193
baseNPL IOB2F
95.34
.4500.9497
IOB2B
95.28
.4362.9487
IOE2F
95.32
.4467.9496
IOE2B
95.29
.4556.9503
chunking IOB1F
93.48
.9342.6585.9605
IOB1B
93.74
.9346.6614.9596
IOB2F
93.46
.9341.6809.9586
IOB2B
93.47
.9355.6722.9594
IOE1F
93.45
.9335.6533.9589
IOE1B
93.72
.9358.6669.9611
IOE2F
93.45
.9341.6740.9606
IOE2B
93.85
.9361.6913.9597
baseNPS IOBESF
93.96
IOBESB
93.58
chunking IOBESF
93.31
IOBESB
93.41
B:Cross Validation,C:VC bound,D:LOO bound
Table 2:Accuracy of individual representations
Training Condition
Accuracy
data rep.
A B C D
baseNPS IOB1
94.14 94.20 94.20 94.16
IOB2
94.16 94.22 94.22 94.18
IOE1
94.14 94.19 94.19 94.16
IOE2
94.16 94.20 94.21 94.17
baseNPL IOB2
95.77  95.66 95.66
IOE2
95.77  95.66 95.66
chunking IOB1
93.77 93.87 93.89 93.87
IOB2
93.72 93.87 93.90 93.88
IOE1
93.76 93.86 93.88 93.86
IOE2
93.77 93.89 93.91 93.85
A:Uniform Weights,B:Cross Validation
C:VC bound,D:LOO bound
Table 3:Results of weighted voting
data set
precision recall
baseNPS
94.15% 94.29% 94.22
baseNPL
95.62% 95.93% 95.77
chunking
93.89% 93.92% 93.91
Table 4:Best results for each data set
since Maximum Entropy model regards all features
as independent and tries to catch the more general
feature sets.
We believe that SVMs performwell regardless of
the chunk representation,since SVMs have a high
generalization performance and a potential to select
the optimal features for the given task.
4.4 Effects of Weighted Voting
By applying weighted voting,we achieve higher ac
curacy than any of single representation system re
gardless of the voting weights.Furthermore,we
achieve higher accuracy by applying Cross valida
tion and VCbound and LeaveOneOut methods
than the baseline method.
By using VC bound for each weight,we achieve
nearly the same accuracy as that of Cross valida
tion.This result suggests that the VC bound has a
potential to predict the error rate for the true test
data accurately.Focusing on the relationship be
tween the accuracy of the test data and the estimated
weights,we nd that VC bound can predict the ac
curacy for the test data precisely.Even if we have
no room for applying the voting schemes because
of some realworld constraints (limited computation
and memory capacity),the use of VCbound may al
low to obtain the best accuracy.On the other hand,
we nd that the prediction ability of LeaveOneOut
is worse than that of VC bound.
Cross validation is the standard method to esti
mate the voting weights for different systems.How
ever,Cross validation requires a larger amount of
computational overhead as the training data is di
vided and is repeatedly used to obtain the voting
weights.We believe that VC bound is more effec
tive than Cross validation,since it can obtain the
comparable results to Cross validation without in
creasing computational overhead.
4.5 Comparison with Related Works
Tjong KimSang et al.report that they achieve accu
racy of 93.86 for baseNPS data set,and 94.90 for
baseNPL data set.They apply weighted voting of
the systems which are trained using distinct chunk
representations and different machine learning al
gorithms such as MBL,ME and IGTree(Tjong Kim
Sang,2000a;Tjong KimSang et al.,2000).
Our experiments achieve the accuracy of 93.76 
94.11 for baseNPS,and 95.29  95.34 for baseNP
L even with a single chunk representation.In addi
tion,by applying the weighted voting framework,
we achieve accuracy of 94.22 for baseNPS,and
95.77 for baseNPL data set.As far as accuracies
are concerned,our model outperforms Tjong Kim
Sang's model.
In the CoNLL2000 shared task,we achieved
the accuracy of 93.48 using IOB2F representation
(Kudo and Matsumoto,2000b)
5
.By combining
weighted voting schemes,we achieve accuracy of
93.91.In addition,our method also outperforms
other methods based on the weighted voting(van
Halteren,2000;Tjong KimSang,2000b).
4.6 Future Work
Applying to other chunking tasks
Our chunking method can be equally appli
cable to other chunking task,such as English
POS tagging,Japanese chunk(bunsetsu) iden
tication and named entity extraction.For fu
ture,we will apply our method to those chunk
ing tasks and examine the performance of the
method.
Incorporating variable context length model
In our experiments,we simply use the so
called x ed context length model.We believe
that we can achieve higher accuracy by select
ing appropriate context length which is actu
ally needed for identifying individual chunk
tags.Sassano and Utsuro(Sassano and Ut
suro,2000) introduce a variable context length
model for Japanese named entity identication
task and perform better results.We will incor
porate the variable context length model into
our system.
Considering more predictable bound
In our experiments,we introduce new types
of voting methods which stem from the theo
rems of SVMs VC bound and LeaveOne
Out bound.On the other hand,Chapelle and
Vapnik introduce an alternative and more pre
dictable bound for the risk and report their
proposed bound is quite useful for selecting
the kernel function and soft margin parame
ter(Chapelle and Vapnik,2000).We believe
that we can obtain higher accuracy using this
more predictable bound for the voting weights
in our experiments.
5
In our experiments,the accuracy of 93.46 is obtained with
IOB2F representation,which was the exactly the same repre
sentation we applied for CoNLL 2000 shared task.This slight
difference of accuracy arises from the following two reason:
(1) The difference of beam width for parsing (N=1 vs.N=5),
(2) The difference of applied SVMs package (TinySVM vs.
.
5 Summary
In this paper,we introduce a uniformframework for
chunking task based on Support Vector Machines
(SVMs).Experimental results on WSJ corpus show
that our method outperforms other conventional ma
chine learning frameworks such MBL and Max
imum Entropy Models.The results are due to
the good characteristics of generalization and non
overtting of SVMs even with a high dimensional
vector space.In addition,we achieve higher accu
racy by applying weighted voting of 8SVM based
systems which are trained using distinct chunk rep
resentations.
References
Erin L.Allwein,Robert E.Schapire,and Yoram
Singer.2000.Reducing multiclass to binary:A
unifying approach for margin classiers.In In
ternational Conf.on Machine Learning (ICML),
pages 916.
Eric Brill.1995.TransformationBased Error
Driven Learning and Natural Language Process
ing:A Case Study in PartofSpeech Tagging.
Computational Linguistics,21(4).
Oliver Chapelle and Vladimir Vapnik.2000.Model
selection for support vector machines.In Ad
vances in Neural Information Processing Systems
12.Cambridge,Mass:MIT Press.
C.Cortes and Vladimir N.Vapnik.1995.Support
Vector Networks.Machine Learning,20:273
297.
T.G.Dietterich and G.Bakiri.1995.Solving multi
class learning problems via errorcorrecting out
put codes.Journal of Articial Intelligence Re
search,2:263286.
Yoav Freund and Robert E.Schapire.1996.Experi
ments with a newboosting algorithm.In Interna
tional Conference on Machine Learning (ICML),
pages 148146.
Thorsten Joachims.1998.Text Categorization with
Support Vector Machines:Learning with Many
Relevant Features.In European Conference on
Machine Learning (ECML).
Ulrich H.G Kreßel.1999.Pairwise Classication
and Support Vector Machines.In Advances in
Kernel Mathods.MIT Press.
Taku Kudo and Yuji Matsumoto.2000a.Japanese
Dependency Structure Analysis Based on Sup
port Vector Machines.In Empirical Methods in
Natural Language Processing and Very Large
Corpora,pages 1825.
Taku Kudo and Yuji Matsumoto.2000b.Use of
Support Vector Learning for Chunk Identica
tion.In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on
CoNLL2000 and LLL2000,pages 142144.
Lance A.Ramshaw and Mitchell P.Marcus.1995.
Text chunking using transformationbased learn
ing.In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Very
Large Corpora,pages 8894.
Manabu Sassano and Takehito Utsuro.2000.
Named Entity Chunking Techniques in Su
pervised Learning for Japanese Named Entity
Recognition.In Proceedings of COLING 2000,
pages 705711.
Robert E.Schapire,Yoav Freund,Peter Bartlett,
and Wee Sun Lee.1997.Boosting the margin:
a new explanation for the effectiveness of vot
ing methods.In International Conference on Ma
chine Learning (ICML),pages 322330.
Hirotoshi Taira and Masahiko Haruno.1999.Fea
ture Selection in SVM Text Categorization.In
AAAI99.
Erik F.Tjong Kim Sang and Sabine Buchholz.
2000.Introduction to the CoNLL2000 Shared
Task:Chunking.In Proceedings of CoNLL2000
and LLL2000,pages 127132.
Erik F.Tjong Kim Sang and Jorn Veenstra.1999.
Representing text chunks.In Proceedings of
EACL'99,pages 173179.
Erik F.Tjong Kim Sang,Walter Daelemans,Herv´e
D´ejean,Rob Koeling,Yuval Krymolowski,Vasin
Punyakanok,and Dan Roth.2000.Applying
system combination to base noun phrase identi
cation.In Proceedings of COLING 2000,pages
857863.
Erik F.Tjong Kim Sang.2000a.Noun phrase
recognition by system combination.In Proceed
ings of ANLPNAACL 2000,pages 5055.
Erik F.Tjong Kim Sang.2000b.Text Chunking by
SystemCombination.In Proceedings of CoNLL
2000 and LLL2000,pages 151153.
Kiyotaka Uchimoto,Qing Ma,Masaki Murata,Hi
romi Ozaku,and Hitoshi Isahara.2000.Named
Entity Extraction Based on AMaximum Entropy
Model and Transformation Rules.In Processing
of the ACL 2000.
Hans van Halteren.2000.Chunking with WPDV
Models.In Proceedings of CoNLL2000 and
LLL2000,pages 154156.
Vladimir N.Vapnik.1998.Statistical Learning
Theory.WileyInterscience.
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
File name:

File size:

Title:

Author:

Subject:

Keywords:

Creation Date:

Modification Date:

Creator:

PDF Producer:

PDF Version:

Page Count:

Preparing document for printing…
0%
Comments 0
Log in to post a comment